Jump to content

Terrorist Attacks June 2015


Tayls

Recommended Posts

But thats your belief that it is fiction, not a fact. Many people believe in the bible until its proven its not true and "fantasy" Harry Potter we know for a fact is a tale and completely not true

How would I prove that something impossible didn't happen? Zombie saints did not walk around Jerusalem.

Prove to me there isn't a platform 9 3/4 at King's Cross station.

But that's the main thing about believing in god its beyond what our minds are known to.

How do you prove it didn't happen on that basis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 black churches burned since the Charleston massacre. Nobody here calls it "terrorism" though, including the shooting itself, even though it fits the description perfectly.

The media have shaped us to think of only Muslims when we talk about "terrorism".

Nobodys even acknowledgeing your post either
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

10 black churches burned since the Charleston massacre. Nobody here calls it "terrorism" though, including the shooting itself, even though it fits the description perfectly.

The media have shaped us to think of only Muslims when we talk about "terrorism".

Nobodys even acknowledgeing your post either

 

limpid did.

 

and now you are.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

10 black churches burned since the Charleston massacre. Nobody here calls it "terrorism" though, including the shooting itself, even though it fits the description perfectly.

The media have shaped us to think of only Muslims when we talk about "terrorism".

Nobodys even acknowledgeing your post either

So I'm nobody? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People will always find reasons to kill each other and have done for thousands of years. People that say religion is to blame are pretty naive and even ignorant in my opinion,

Of course you can't blame religion for all of mankind's wrongdoing. You can blame it for the religiously inspired wrongdoing though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

But thats your belief that it is fiction, not a fact. Many people believe in the bible until its proven its not true and "fantasy" Harry Potter we know for a fact is a tale and completely not true

How would I prove that something impossible didn't happen? Zombie saints did not walk around Jerusalem.

Prove to me there isn't a platform 9 3/4 at King's Cross station.

But that's the main thing about believing in god its beyond what our minds are known to.

How do you prove it didn't happen on that basis?

No, it's cognitive dissonance which you have been conditioned to accept.

 

It's impossible to prove a negative. I believe it's not true. If you believe that it is true that zombie saints went walking around Jerusalem then the burden of proof is on you to substantiate Matthew's claim.

 

Here's proof that Platform 9 3/4 actually exists at King's Cross in London:

platform9_3-4_1.jpg

Of course, if you can't see it you must be a muggle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People will always find reasons to kill each other and have done for thousands of years. People that say religion is to blame are pretty naive and even ignorant in my opinion,

Of course you can't blame religion for all of mankind's wrongdoing. You can blame it for the religiously inspired wrongdoing though.

Yes you can. But I believe if those same people weren't using religion for their wrong doings it would be something else. The issue is mankind. Not religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People will always find reasons to kill each other and have done for thousands of years. People that say religion is to blame are pretty naive and even ignorant in my opinion,

Of course you can't blame religion for all of mankind's wrongdoing. You can blame it for the religiously inspired wrongdoing though.
Yes you can. But I believe if those same people weren't using religion for their wrong doings it would be something else. The issue is mankind. Not religion.

For some,possibly, but for others religion is most certainly the only reason they are able to carry out heinous acts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 black churches burned since the Charleston massacre. Nobody here calls it "terrorism" though, including the shooting itself, even though it fits the description perfectly.

The media have shaped us to think of only Muslims when we talk about "terrorism".

Nobodys even acknowledgeing your post either
So I'm nobody? :)
Must of skipped past it sorry, in the wide scope of things though its only terrorism if its done by muslims
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 black churches burned since the Charleston massacre. Nobody here calls it "terrorism" though, including the shooting itself, even though it fits the description perfectly.

The media have shaped us to think of only Muslims when we talk about "terrorism".

Nobodys even acknowledgeing your post either

limpid did.

 

and now you are.  :)

Norway.

It's not just a media conspiracy. There are a lot of people really really keen to peddle this idea that terrorism is now uniquely Muslim.

It isn't.

If, tomorrow, some environmentalist bombs a particularly nefarious facility (and for the avoidance of doubt let's say this is a pasty white ginger environmentalist with a crucifix tattooed to his chest and a Bible in his pocket alongside his copy of Tree Hugging Monthly), and they find out he's environmentally politically active, it'll get called terrorism. If it turns into some wider campaign, you can bet the media acts exactly like it does with Islamic flavour terrorism.

Why hasn't Charleston been called terrorism? Combination of things, and the concept of 'only Muslims are terrorists lol' doesn't come into it. The media, and law and government, have an issue with lone wolf incidents. A lot of scholars, academics and officials will tell you there's no such thing as lone wolf terrorism. They just treat then as basic criminal incidents, usually. Then you have the problem of the label of terrorism. Is been so bent out of shape over the years that in some cases it doesn't actually mean anything much anymore. And perhaps most importantly, the US had such a shitty handle on racial issues that calling it terrorism probably opens a can of worms they aren't prepared to handle right now.

Charleston could probably be called terrorism. But I can completely understand why they chose to call it a hate crime instead, and on many ways that's probably a better way to go and a more accurate description. Ultimately a semantic argument.

But let's not pretend that, touch wood it doesn't happen, tomorrow a bomb goes off somewhere placed by... an atheist communist fundamentalist white guy... that everyone shuffles their feet and scratches their head and mutters 'If only he was brown and owned a Qur'an, we could call it terrorism...'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Black church shooting, burnings...hate crimes meant to instill the terror that was rampant throughout the South for most of the 20th century here.

 

What is terrorism if not the actual terrorizing of a sector of a given population by another?

 

We are watching the Old South in it's White Supremacist death throes, and it's really **** ugly.

Edited by maqroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

is it really getting that bad in the south again?

9 black churchgoers slaughtered and 10 church burnings since suggest that it is. Throw in extrajudicial police killings and kkk protests...yeah its **** mental

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of the attacks are disgusting but there must be a slight difference in how they are reported and the reasons behind them I suppose.

 

Both are committed by words removed,  that's a given but 1 is driven by the hate of actual tangible things,  they can point and say "Don't like them because they are X, Y or Z colour,  size or whatever".  This is a social problem combined with education and opportunities.  Targeting of churches is just a "Hit em where it hurts"mentality,  what else could the rocket polishers they burn if not the churches.  They have nothing else.

 

The other is driven by a concept that is essentially for the weak minded and 100% made up but causes the death of millions of people but is pushed by some as a religion of peace. 

 

Neither are solvable unless people take some decisions to stop it all once and for all.  What things are called is irrelevant in the big scheme of things and especially to those it is happening too also.  They have to live with it unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

People will always find reasons to kill each other and have done for thousands of years. People that say religion is to blame are pretty naive and even ignorant in my opinion,

Of course you can't blame religion for all of mankind's wrongdoing. You can blame it for the religiously inspired wrongdoing though.
Yes you can. But I believe if those same people weren't using religion for their wrong doings it would be something else. The issue is mankind. Not religion.

For some,possibly, but for others religion is most certainly the only reason they are able to carry out heinous acts.

 

If anybody thinks that the ISIS leaders send their troops to kill the rest of the world, they might as well think that America sent their troops to Iraq/Afghanistan to bring them 'democracy'. Its all about the money. 

Yes, most likely single terrorists might be powered by religious purposes (although you cannot get much further from Islam then ISIS) but the whole organisation seeks to take over land and gain monetary value from it. As is the reason for any such organisation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Without wanting to get into a massive debate, I guess the difference in believing in God and believing in Harry Potter, is that billions of people believe in God.

 

So there may be the same amount of evidence, but if you're presented with two different scenarios and someone says "there's no evidence for either but billions of people believe option A is true, but nobody believes option B is true" then you're more likely to believe option A, I would have thought.

 

Or at least most people would. Obviously there would be exceptions.

An appeal to popularity is a fallacy. It doesn't matter how many people something. Either it's true or it isn't. (That's 50/50.)

 

Besides; which God? Pretty much every religious person believes in a different God (or gods). Most Christians don't believe in the volcano god / mountain spirit / air god /drug delusion described in the Bible they share with the other Abrahamic religions  There is only one Harry Potter. Arguably more people believe in Harry Potter than in any personal definition of God. Unless you are talking about "something out there" which is deism and not religion or theism and god with a small "g".

 

I don't disagree with any of this. None of it disagrees with my point.

 

I'm not saying more people believing in something makes it true, or more likely to be true.

 

Just that more people believing in something means that others are more likely to believe in it too.

 

So to answer the question of why do people believe in God and not Harry Potter, it's because millions or billions of people believe in (a?) God and have done for thousands of years, therefore it's a lot more believable than a book that everyone knows is fiction, nobody believes is the truth and was written in the past 20 years.

 

Again, to reiterate, I don't believe in either, and I'm not saying it makes it more true. Just that when people throw out this argument and similar (the spaghetti monster argument, for example) it's not really comparing apples with apples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â